R v Richards - [2015] ACTSC 206

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Richards
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 206
Hearing Date:	23 April and 22 July 2015
DecisionDate:	22 July 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a total of four years and two months’ imprisonment. To be released after two years and one month upon entering into a recognisance in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for that period.
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – Sentencing – particular offences – dishonestly obtain a financial gain by deception – use false documents with intent to dishonestly induce a public official to accept them as genuine and obtain a gain
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 3ZL(1), 16A, 16(2), 21B Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 11.1(1), 134.2(1), 145.1(1)
Cases Cited:	Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58 R v Anderson [2012] QCA 215 R v Host [2015] WASCA 23 R v Peterson [2008] QCA 70
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Andrew Charles Richards (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms N Case and Ms K Musgrove (Crown) Mr M Kukulies-Smith (Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 41 of 2015

MURRELL CJ:

The Offences

The offender pleaded guilty to the following offences.

(a)Between 7 March 2010 and 7 October 2010, dishonestly attempt to obtain a financial advantage by deception (the sum of $12,272) contrary to ss 11.1(1) and 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The maximum available penalty is 10 years' imprisonment.
(b)Between 2 January 2007 and 7 October 2007, dishonestly obtain a financial gain by deception (the net sum of $327,942) contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code. The maximum available penalty is 10 years' imprisonment.
(c)Between 16 June 2010 and 14 July 2010, knowingly use false documents with intent to dishonestly induce a public official to accept them as genuine and thereby obtain a gain contrary to s 145.1(1) of the Criminal Code. The maximum available penalty is 10 years' imprisonment. This offence relates to submitting false documents to substantiate a February 2010 Business Activity Statement (BAS) claim.
(d)In or about April 2002, use a false document (a false birth certificate) with intent to dishonestly induce a public official to accept it as genuine and dishonestly influence the exercise of a public function contrary to s 145.1(1) of the Criminal Code. The maximum available penalty is 10 years' imprisonment.

On 22 October 2014 the offender was charged with 48 offences. At the first mention date in the Magistrates Court his legal representative indicated that there would be a plea of guilty to the substance of appropriate charges. A large volume of material was served on the defence. On the fourth appearance in the Magistrates Court, the original charges were replaced with “rolled up” charges and the offender pleaded guilty. The matters were committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Taking into account the pleas at the earliest reasonable opportunity and the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Richards

Details

AGLC: R v Richards [2015] ACTSC 206
Case: [2015] ACTSC 206
Decision Date: 22 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Richards, the defendant was convicted of obtaining a financial gain by deception and using false documents with intent to dishonestly induce a public official to accept them as genuine. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant was found guilty of presenting false documents to a public official, resulting in the fraudulent acquisition of a financial benefit. The primary issues before the court involved the appropriate sentencing for these offences, considering their gravity and the defendant's culpability.

The court addressed several factors in determining the sentence, including the severity of the offences, the defendant's intent, and the impact on the victims. The court recognised that the offences involved significant dishonesty and manipulation of public processes, which warranted a substantial custodial sentence. Additionally, the court considered the defendant's previous criminal history and the need for general deterrence. Balancing these considerations, the court concluded that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and to uphold the integrity of the legal system.

After carefully weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court sentenced the defendant to a total of four years and two months’ imprisonment. The court ordered that the defendant be released after serving two years and one month, subject to entering into a recognisance in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for the remainder of the sentence. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that those who engage in fraudulent activities are held accountable and that justice is served.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a total of four years and two months’ imprisonment. To be released after two years and one month upon entering into a recognisance in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for that period.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.